Do you think that photographic evidence found on Facebook would be excluded on these grounds? "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." I was making a general, overly broad and ultimately incorrect claim.

Recognizing that my claim was flawed, I would like to ask, "Why is it bad that this evidence is included?" I think that it violates people's privacy. However, does it do more than that? Besides the violation of privacy, is it more likely to cause injustice? The ideal insurance company would recognize and pay out all sound claims and reject all fraudulent claims. I feel like this does not work against that end.

I have posted this link http://mashable.com/2009/11/22/facebook-health-benefits/ on my Facebook “wall” with a short explanation about the lack of privacy on Facebook in general. I agree with Steven regarding his analysis of the particular facts of the woman in the article. However, I strongly believe that people should be aware of the lack of privacy on Facebook so that they can make informed choices about how it should be used. Toward that end I encourage each of you to post this link and an explanation on your Facebook walls.

Navigation

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.